On Wednesday 04 July 2001 09:53, Ph. Marek wrote: > >> Well, my point was, that with several thousand inodes spread over the > >> disk it won't always be possible to update the inode AND the fbb in one > >> go. So I proposed the 2nd inode with generation counter! > > > >The cool thing is, it *is* possible, read how here: > > > > http://nl.linux.org/~phillips/tux2/phase.tree.tutorial.html > > Well, ok. Your split the inode "files" too. > > Hmmm... > That sound more complex than my version (at least now, until I've seen the > implementation - maybe it's easier because it has less special cases than > mine). Yes, it's more complex, but not horribly so. It's a lot more efficient, and that's the point. > And of course the memory usage on the harddisk is much less with your > version as you split your inode data and don't have it duplicated. Yep. > Well, I hope to see an implementation soon - I'd like to help, even if it's > only testing. See you on the list. By the way, if you want to help out right now, could you run some benchmarks my latest early flush patch? See "[RFC] Early Flush with Bandwidth Estimation". -- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
